By slim margin, South Africa’s president weathers his fourth no-confidence vote
CAPE TOWN, South Africa — President Jacob Zuma of South Africa survived a no-confidence motion in Parliament on Tuesday but by a much narrower margin than expected, revealing the extent to which accusations of graft and mismanagement have weakened his party’s hold on power.
After hours of heated debate, the motion was defeated, with 177 lawmakers voting yes, 198 voting no and nine abstaining.
If Zuma had lost, he would have had to resign, along with his entire Cabinet. Although he prevailed, his standing within the African National Congress, which has governed South Africa since the end of apartheid, has eroded, perhaps beyond the point of repair.
Zuma called the vote a victory, telling jubilant supporters in Cape Town that “the ANC is supported by the overwhelming majority” of South Africans.
A secret ballot
It was the fourth noconfidence vote in Parliament that Zuma has survived — but the first to be conducted by secret ballot.
Opponents had hoped that anonymous voting would embolden disaffected ANC loyalists to defect and vote against Zuma without fear of reprisal. It appeared that many did so: The ANC controls 249 seats in the 400-member National Assembly, the lower and more powerful house of Parliament; the motion needed 201 votes to pass, and it fell only 24 votes short. As the debate proceeded, crowds massed in Cape Town to listen to the proceedings, which were streamed and broadcast live. Protesters gathered also in Johannesburg and Pretoria.
Zuma’s opponents said the vote was essential to restoring confidence in the government and improving the economy. They repeatedly cited a lengthy controversy involving the Guptas, a powerful family that has extensive business holdings and is so close to Zuma that they were commonly called the Zuptas. Leaked emails have led to accusations of influence peddling and calls for investigations.
‘Perceived corruption’
In Parliament on Tuesday, Zuma’s defenders were fairly muted. Puleng Mabe, an ANC lawmaker, said that if the motion was enacted, it would amount to a coup d’état.
“The outrage in the public over the levels of real and perceived corruption must be addressed by this Parliament,” he said, adding that the proper response was independent oversight, not toppling Zuma and his Cabinet.